A public charitable trust employing personnel for systematic management of properties and operational activities can be classified as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, overriding purely religious or charitable claims.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner-Trust challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, essentially raising a plea that it does not fall in the definition of the term ‘industry’ under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and that therefore it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal

2. Seth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities is a public charitable trust registered under provisions of the then Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The scheme of Petitioner-Trust was framed by this Court in 1925, and the objective of the Trust is to propagate Jain religion and provide help to needy people. It claims to be a religious charitable trust. At the relevant time, there were about 35 employees employed by the Trust as watchmen, cleaners, sweepers, poojaries, electrical staff, cashiers etc. The employees joined the Bombay General Employees Association, a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. By letter dated 22 January 1983, Respondent-Union demanded permanency, scales of pay, dearness allowance, privileged leave, sick leave, casual leave, paid holidays, provident fund, bonus, overtime wages, gratuity etc. The demands were admitted in conciliation on 9 May 1983. Upon submission of failure report by the Conciliator, the Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal and the reference was registered as Reference (IT) No.4 of 1984.

3. The Union filed its Statement of Claim, which was resisted by the Petitioner-Trust by filing its Written Statement. Petitioner-Trust raised an objection that it is not an ‘industry’ as defined under Section 2 (j) of the ID Act. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the contention of Petitioner-Trust that it is not an ‘industry’. The Industrial Tribunal thereafter proceeded to consider various demands raised by the Respondent-Union. By Award dated 20 August 1996, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to grant the benefits of permanency on completion of 240 days of service, pay scale, dearness allowance, privileged leave, sick leave, casual leave, paid holidays, provident fund, bonus, overtime wages, gratuity etc. to the members of the Respondent-Union. Aggrieved by the Award dated 20 August 1996, Petitioner-Trust has filed the present Petition.

4. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner-Trust has submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has erred in holding that Petitioner-Trust is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the ID Act. That the Industrial Tribunal has erroneously held that the Trust is carrying out regular activity of sale of various items and that therefore it is an ‘industry’. He would submit that the Supreme Court has held in Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan vs. Shri Gajanan Karmachari Sangh and Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 531 that the totality of matter is required to be seen and mere nature of activity carried out by employees cannot be the determinative factor. He would take me through the three categories of trusts discussed by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa & Ors. (1978) 2 SCC 213. He would submit that the Apex Court has held that even though in a charitable trust, there is feature of organized and systematic activity, such activity still would not be an industry if it is fueled by philanthropic devotion on the basis of charitable foundation or establishment. That mere engagement of certain persons and scavengers or servants or part-time auditor or accountant would not make a charitable trust an industry. He would submit that Petitioner-Trust falls in the third category discussed by the Apex Court. That the Industrial Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the predominant character of the Petitioner-Trust. That the Tribunal erroneously applied criteria of mere